Who said Europe is lost?

Obama has a slight edge over McCain with Catholics, the critical swing vote in presidential elections.

From Gallup: “Among major U.S. religious groups, Catholic voters are most closely divided in their presidential voting preferences, with Barack Obama holding a narrow 47% to 43% advantage over John McCain.”  (Hat tip Southern Appeal.)

McCain can win Catholics over. His “I hate war” TV ads are a great start. Talking about marriage, abortion and judges more often would certainly help Reagan Democrats to cross the aisle. But he also needs an economic message that will help working class Catholics in Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

As Ross Douthat has mentioned before, it’s not really income tax rates that are hurting working class voters. It’s the payroll tax, inflation, mortgages and $4 gas. A strong dollar, cheap energy and payroll tax relief would go a long way to easing the pocketbook problems working class voters have.

“On a sultry summer day, with the aroma of grilled hamburgers and hot dogs in the air, the rally took on the trappings of a political festival…”

Words from a good summer novel?  Think again.  The description is from today’s NY Times article on the Obama-Clinton “unity” rally.  “United for Change” was the theme (how original; perhaps it should have been titled ‘United to Help Pay Down Hillary’s Campaign Debt’).

Yet despite the carefully choreographed public embrace, I am not buying the show.  The Clintons don’t forgive easily, and Obama has put a serious road block in the legacy building project that began the day Bill Clinton left the White House.  The skeptics who have suggested that Hillary would like nothing better than to see Obama lose, and then run away with the nomination in ‘12 cannot be dismissed

One thing is for sure, the media will badly disappoint when it comes to reporting the real rifts that still exist between the two camps.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court injunction blocking South Dakota’s informed consent law from taking effect.

The 8th Circuit removed the injunction and sent the case back to the district court today, allowing the law to go into effect. Among its requirements is that a woman must be given a written disclosure, prior to an abortion that says: “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

This is a huge victory for women, and for the pro-life legal movement.

AP just getting the story.

UPDATE: full AP story here 

8th Circuit – Planned Parenthood v. Rounds

Relevant excerpt:

The disclosure actually mandated by § 7(1)(b), in concert with the definition in § 8(4), is “[t]hat the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” § 7(1)(b), and that “human being” in this case means “an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens . . . during [its] embryonic [or] fetal age[],” § 8(4). The State’s evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician, cf. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. at 1627 (“[B]y common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.”), and Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion.

More:

Casey and Gonzales establish that, while the State cannot compel an individual
simply to speak the State’s ideological message, it can use its regulatory authority to require a physician to provide truthful, non-misleading information relevant to a
patient’s decision to have an abortion, even if that information might also encourage the patient to choose childbirth over abortion. Therefore, Planned Parenthood cannot succeed on the merits of its claim that § 7(1)(b) violates a physician’s right not to speak unless it can show that the disclosure is either untruthful, misleading or not relevant to the patient’s decision to have an abortion.

Taken in isolation, § 7(1)(b)’s language “[t]hat the abortion will terminate the
life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being” certainly may be read to make a point in the debate about the ethics of abortion. Our role, however, is to examine the disclosure actually mandated, not one phrase in isolation. Planned Parenthood’s evidence and argument rely on the supposition that, in practice, the patient will not receive or understand the narrow, species-based definition of “human being” in § 8(4) of the Act, but we are not persuaded that this is so.

David Brooks is glowing over the new book, “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,” by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam.

The heart of the book is the last third, where Douthat and Salam lay out a series of policy ideas to help working-class families cope with economic, health care, neighborhood and family insecurity.

“What all these ideas, from the sober to the speculative, have in common is a vision of working-class independence — from bosses, from bureaucracy, from entrenched interests of all kinds,” Douthat and Salam write. This is not compassionate conservatism (which flattered the mind of the compassionate donor), it’s hard-work conservatism, which uses government to increase the odds that self-discipline and effort will pay off.

I’m not sure how quickly the G.O.P. can swing behind this working-class focus and this vision of government-enhanced social mobility. But the McCain campaign really needs to. So far, McCain’s platform is like an omnibus spending bill — lots of decent ideas thrown together with no larger social vision.

It may take a few defeats for the G.O.P. to embrace a Sam’s Club agenda, but sooner or later, it will happen. Trust me.

Economic independence for hard-working blue collar voters. That is exactly what John McCain should be all about. And with $4 gas and a sputtering economy, blue collar Reagan Democrats will not become McCain Democrats unless the Arizona Senator develops a strong message and agenda.

NRO is on the case:

Nominated in July 2007, Conrad is a model candidate who has twice been confirmed by the Senate to other positions. A longtime federal prosecutor in North Carolina, Conrad served as U.S. Attorney from 2001 to 2004. He became a federal district judge in North Carolina in 2005 and is now chief judge of his court.

By the very standards that Senate Democrats have expounded, Conrad ought to have been readily confirmed. He has the strong support of both North Carolina senators — Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr — and the ABA unanimously gave him its highest “well qualified” rating. The Judicial Conference of the United States has declared the vacancy to which he has been nominated a “judicial emergency.” …

Despite all this, nearly a year after his nomination, Conrad has still not received a hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democrats use the Supreme Court as a permanent Constitutional Convention, so why are we surprised that they use obstruction to change the Third Branch?

I wonder… what if John Kerry had signaled his support for a partial-birth abortion ban in 2004? 

Such a move might have allowed Democrats to convince (fool) enough Americans that they had found the appropriate “middle ground” on abortion. Such a middle ground would allow for abortion, but give enormous lip service to how awful it is, and would support parents while placing safeguards for the young girls and restricting the more nasty elements of abortion.

Token measures like this might have soothed a considerable number of Catholics in states like Ohio. Many Catholics are natural Democrats, but feel uneasy about the party’s full-throated support for abortion. Small concessions like partial-birth bans and parental consent would have provided significant cover for uneasy Catholic Democrats. They likely would not have crossed party lines and supported George Bush in 2004.

George Bush to his credit, put the pressure on Kerry. Bush repeatedly emphasized his support for traditional marriage, and for opposing partial-birth abortion and activist judges.

And that’s why George Bush won Ohio and was re-elected in 2004.

Politico.com ponders the contribution that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine might add to an Obama ticket:

Pundits were quick to point out that Obama was long ago endorsed by Kaine, who pledged his support for the Illinois senator way back in February 2007. Some have also noted how Kaine is a Catholic with a proven ability to connect with other Catholics.

Nowhere in the article does it mention a certain liability that picking Kaine might hurt Obama with feminists, who already harbor frustration in the wake of Hillary’s defeat.

You see, even though Tim Kaine fully supports legal abortion, he feels bad about it. In fact, he repeatedly has said that he has “faith-based opposition to abortion.” Don’t worry, pro-choicers. Just like “personally opposed” Mario Cuomo, Tim Kaine still supports legal abortion on demand.

Kaine makes just one, minor caveat: If you are going to abort your baby, you simply can’t perform the abortion if the baby is in the process of delivery. No partial-birth abortions. To feminists, this is compromise. This is admitting it’s a baby. Unacceptable!

From LifeNews.com:

A new study of Catholic voters conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University shows them leaning more towards the Democratic Party this election. That could be a plus for pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama….

Fewer Catholics self-identify as Republicans in 2008 than in any previous election year since 2000 in CARA polls. Only 21 percent are either strongly or weakly affiliated as a Republican in 2008. By comparison, 31 percent identified as Republican in 2004.

Looks like McCain needs to crank his Catholic outreach into overdrive.

The 2nd Amendment survives.

Is there any doubt that if John Kerry had been president the past 4 or 8 years, there would have been much wailing and gnashing of teeth today over yet another forfeiture of liberty at the expense of judicial activism? Instead, our right to protect our children and families from predators (even, gasp, from the government if necessary) lives on. Dust off your Constitution and celebrate.

News and analysis here

Time Magazine reports that “Americans of every religious stripe are considerably more tolerant of the beliefs of others than most of us might have assumed, according to a new poll released Monday.”

Good to hear! Apparently, religious people are more understanding of different peoples, less prejudiced, willing to hire and work with people whose views might seem exotic.

But wait! Time wasn’t talking about less workplace discrimination or more harmonious neighborhoods. Their evidence of less tolerance?

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 Americans, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement “Many religions can lead to eternal life.” Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that “no one comes to the Father except through me.” Even as mainline churches had become more tolerant, the exclusivity of Christianity’s path to heaven has long been one of the Evangelicals’ fundamental tenets. The new poll suggests a major shift, at least in the pews.

Tolerance, as defined by Time, is believing that adherents of other faith traditions are can enter Heaven. 

So if a Muslim believes that Christians and Jews will not enter Heaven, does that make him intolerant? If a Christian believes that you must believe in Jesus in order to be saved from eternal damnation, is he intolerant?

Tolerance is about kindness and respecting other people and their differences. But courtesy in a poilite society doesn’t mean I must reject a belief that my church is the path to salvation.

So if you think Christianity is intolerant because it makes a demand that you believe in Jesus in order to be saved from eternal fire, well then take it up with Him. Your beef is not with me.

CNSNews.com reports on an interesting ad campaign: 

“America is a country of strong families and strong values,” says a political ad that began airing in 18 states over the weekend. The candidate then goes on to say how he helped move people off the welfare rolls and fought for tax cuts.

It almost sounds like a typical Republican campaign commercial — except this is the first national ad aired by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama since he effectively secured his party’s nomination earlier this month.

The story goes on to quote Tony Campolo, a sociology professor at Eastern University, who speculates that Obama will win 35 to 36 percent of the evangelical vote.

“The older evangelicals, I think about 80 percent, will vote for John McCain even though they aren’t thrilled with him, simply because of the pro-life issue alone,” Campolo, who is also a member of the Democratic National Committee’s platform committee, told CNSNews.com. 

“The younger evangelicals are looking at poverty, the AIDS crisis, the environment and war,” he said. “They give those issues almost as much weight as they give gay marriage and abortion.”

Are they unaware that John McCain is the nominee? Even a Cliff Notes version of this election cycle would remind folks that John McCain is no Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul.

If you’re a pro-life and pro-family evangelical, but agree with the Democrats on the enviroment and poverty and the AIDS crisis, you need be in no dilemma. You vote for John McCain.

McCain is on the left on the environment. He’s emphatic about climate change. Much more so than I want, in fact. Regarding the AIDS crisis, have people forgotten that George W. Bush has opened much more AIDS funding for Africa than anyone had dreamed possible?

Poeple need to throw away this media-driven cartoon version of the GOP. This is not the world of Charles Dickens. John McCain is no Scrooge.

Obama was open to education “change” back in February:

The Illinois Senator told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: “If there was any argument for vouchers, it was ‘Alright, let’s see if this experiment works,’ and if it does, then whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids,” the senator said. “I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn. We’re losing several generations of kids and something has to be done.”

But the teachers union got to him. Obama and Congressional Democrats are now ready to squash Opportunity Scholarships for kids in the nation’s capital. Read all about it our latest release.

Here’s an interesting interview between the New York Times Magazine and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (Hat Tip: Real Clear Politics VP Watch:

Is it fair to describe you as socially progressive? I think it is fair to describe me as a common-sense Republican.

Which implies that some Republicans lack common sense. That’s possible.

You have supported stem-cell research, unlike most Republicans.  I do support that. I think it is common sense to pay attention to what is happening in science. My father is a physician, my sister is a physician and I try to be enlightened on things that might extend and create productive life.

When George W. Bush used the term “compassionate conservative,” other conservatives grumbled that the term implied that Bush alone was compassionate and that other conservatives were not. But Bush never let them out to dry. He said he never meant to insuate anything bad, but that he realized that Republicans needed to re-emphasize how their party, after the big budget and welfare battles of the 1990s, cared for the interests of the poor.

Charlie Crist says he’s a common sense Republican and the New York Times calls his bluff. Sadly, Charlie has no problems suggesting that he is one of the few Republicans who “gets it.” Why couldn’t he have said, “What I mean by common sense is that I don’t get concerned over endless bickering and debating. I want to roll up my sleeves and find real-life solutions to the problem facing Floridians today”? That way you compliment yourself while gently suggesting to fellow Republicans that your approach is better. Nah, Charlie’s too smug for that.

Crist also could have talked about stem cells better. It would be one thing if he said that he learned some insight from his father and sister being a physician. Instead he says: “I try to be enlightened.” Uh, as opposed to…? Who tries to keep themselves in the dark? Who, Charlie?

With the number of Veterans in Florida and the Jewish vote not enthused about Obama, McCain probably doesn’t need help in Florida as much as he does in Ohio or Michigan.

Bill McGurn pounces on Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Council, a topic Bill Donohue at the Catholic League has been raising since May.  McGurn notes that 17 of the 21 members of the advisory council have a NARAL rating of 90%-100%.

His summary of Obama’s position on life:

Mr. Obama is for using tax dollars to fund abortions, and against restrictions on partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation protecting a child who was born alive despite an abortion. In sum, if you want to know what Mr. Obama’s policies mean, it’s this: taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

When you look past the soothing language about “change” and the willingness to “listen,” the actual policies and voting record are to the left of Ted Kennedy’s and Bernie Sanders’.

Of continued interest to me is a question raised by Deal Hudson after the group was first announced.  Namely, why is Doug Kmiec not on the advisory group?

The Wall Street Journal features a front page story today on Planned Parenthood detailing the booming business. “Flush with cash…” is how the article begins. Enough said.

Kathryn Lopez of NRO also references the WSJ piece in her excellent article today:

Further, Planned Parenthood is a booming business. The Journal article this morning reports that PP took in $1 billion in its last financial report. According to the piece, about a third of that revenue comes from federal and state grants for low-income women. “The nonprofit ended the year with a surplus of $115 million, or about 11% of its revenue, and net assets of $952 million.”

The WSJ article implies, accurately in my opinion, that Planned Parenthood is quickly becoming the WalMart of the abortion industry – the ubiquitous national mega health center invading neighborhoods with their anti-women, anti-child billion dollar business. Their big box centers (see new 52,000 sq. ft. center opening in Denver) are growing larger and larger, all with the help of the American taxpayer.

Interestingly, the WSJ reports approximately 40% of the space in the new Denver center will be used for “meetings, including political work.” Thus it should come as no surprise that Obama opted out of public financing for his campaign when the American taxpayer is helping fund the infrastructure for some of his biggest backers, including Planned Parenthood, who has pledged to spend $10 million this election cycle.

Lopez urges McCain to push the issue:

John McCain has an opportunity to legitimately use his record to differentiate between himself and Senator Obama in a way that will both help social and fiscal conservatives support him. Opposing Planned Parenthood funding meshes with McCain’s contention that abortion is a human-rights issue and his continuing campaign against wasteful government spending. Planned Parenthood doesn’t need or deserve federal funding.

After taking in millions of dollars to build a powerful membership organization, MoveOn.org is calling for independent groups to join them and shut down their 527 organizations.  In short, MoveOn pretends to take the high road by calling on everyone to follow their lead, and rely ONLY on smaller donors to fund election education efforts.

Now that they have built their army of smaller donors with millions of 527 cash, they will be accusing anyone that attacks Barack Obama as a lobbyist funded “special interest group.”

Or maybe they have simply calculated that the mainstream media will be doing the work of their 527 this election cycle.

Their latest:

For almost ten years, we’ve worked together to change American politics. Millions of us have collaborated to build a new progressive moment, catalyzed by the Internet and motivated by our belief that the country we love deserves better.

Now, in Barack Obama, we have a Presidential candidate who has based his campaign on precisely that kind of new politics—a people-driven politics focused on the outside-of-the-beltway consensus around Iraq, climate change, and health care, not the gridlock in Washington.

Using a lot of the tools and techniques developed by the progressive movement—as well as a visionary approach to leadership—Obama’s brought millions of new people into the process. And, following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, ActBlue, and other innovators, he’s adopted a new way of funding a campaign—relying on a donor base of millions rather than contributions by lobbyists and special interests.

It’s a very exciting moment. And so the time has come to answer an important question: should we make an all-in commitment, together, to this new politics?

While MoveOn Political Action has always been funded exclusively by small donors like you, we’ve held open the MoveOn.org Voter Fund—a separate “527″ organization—which can raise money from big donors. We haven’t actually taken any big-money checks since 2004, when MoveOn members matched big contributors to educate voters about George Bush’s policies. But in light of the new politics offered by Barack Obama, I’ve come to believe it’s time to close the 527 forever—and to challenge organizations on the right to do the same thing.

Commonweal has an article by Gerald Beyer titled, “Yes You Can: Why Catholics Don’t Have to Vote Republican.” (Article online at CatholicsforObama.)

Todd Aglialoro at InsideCatholic.com does an excellent job pointing out several faulty assumptions in the article.

Here are some of the faulty assumptions Todd finds in the Commonweal piece:

The confusion between “mustn’t vote for a pro-abortion Democrat” and “must vote Republican” …

The red herring of Republican administrations’ failure to stop abortion, coupled with another appearance of the old “treating root causes is better than criminalizing abortion” claim, which has apparently returned to stay this election year. …

Well said, Todd. Most pro-life Catholics supporting John McCain fully appreciate the difficulty of trying to curtail the practice and frequency of abortion. I haven’t met a person yet who thinks electing John McCain president will result in a quick end to abortion.

Perhaps pro-life activists were naive in the 1970s hoping to pass a Constitutional Amendment. But, especially since the disappointing Casey decision in 1992, pro-life activists have been very pragmatic, focusing on simple measures that reduce the number of abortions, while also educating and persuading more of the general population to the pro-life position.

In order to justify a Catholic vote for Obama, apologists for the Illinois Senator fail to recognize the modest gains for life made in George Bush’s two terms and completely omit Obama’s commitment to promote and subsidize abortion if he’s elected president.

Don’t get me wrong, I think John McCain and conservatives in the House are right to emphasize earmark reform and cutting wasteful spending. In 2006, Republicans lost in part because our “brand” was tarnished by the Bridge to Nowhere and the scandals of several Congressmen.

McCain and the conservatives at the Republican Study Committee seemed focused on pocketbook issues alone. With the economy sputtering, I understand. But Americans also vote their values.

Conservatives on Capitol Hill need to start aggressively courting social conservatives if they want to win in November. Right now, the Republican Study Committee looks like they’re lagging behind on pushing a social conservative agenda. Since they applauded the Right to Life march in January, their media shop has been radio silent on pro-life issues.

The clock is ticking.

Ramesh Ponnuru has done a good job providing criticism of Doug Kmiec’s case for Barack Obama, but today his frustration (understandably) got the best of him when he read the tagline used in Kmiec’s Chicago Tribune article. It reads:

Douglas W. Kmiec, who was denied communion by a priest for endorsing Barack Obama, is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University and was an assistant U.S. attorney general during the Reagan administration.

Ramesh’s responds: “Do we have anything other than’s Kmiec’s say-so that this event ever occurred? And is Kmiec planning to put it on his business cards from now on?”

That’s an snarky and uncharitable way of asking a question that deserves to be raised. Who wrote that tagline? Did the Tribune or was it Kmiec? If Kmeic wrote the tagline or consented to having it in, is he shopping his denial of Communion to get media attention? (By the way, Deal Hudson confirmed that Kmiec was denied Communion.)

Ramesh, it should be noted, said, when the story first broke, that the priest was wrong to deny Communion to Kmiec. And I don’t think Ramesh’s frustrations should prevent a sober and thoughtful discussion about some legitimate questions: 

How should we remedy the injustice of Kmiec being denied Communion?  Is it fair to ask Kmiec why he went public with it? What is the right way to discuss the subject to the secular media? Do repeated references to the incident aid or hinder a reasoned discussion of the Communion debate?

If, for example, a priest denied me Communion because I supported pro-life Rick Santorum over pro-life Bob Casey on the theory that I was complicit in the Iraqi War, I would be very frustrated. I would take up the issue with that priest’s bishop. But I would not call up E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post or chat about it on NPR. 

Ramesh isn’t way off the mark for suggesting that Kmiec is wearing this incident like a badge of honor. Like Ramesh, when I first heard of it, I felt bad for Kmiec – that he was truly wronged. But Kmiec needs to realize that his decision to continually bring it up is raising serious questions about his motives.